The belief that videogames lead to real-life violence flies in the face of statistics which show that violent crime in the U.S. has dropped off significantly since peaking in the early 90s, a period of time that corresponds with the rise of mainstream videogaming. In other words, it's pretty hard to argue rationally that videogames cause violence since two decades of evidence points to precisely the opposite. But why let things like facts get in the way of a good opinion?

That right there is news that makes you feel good. We all know the news media in the US never reports significant 'feel good' news. They can't keep everyone in fear if they say crime has gone down for the last decade or two.

Then again, I never trusted these random pole statistics, simply based on how you phrase a question you can alter the results. Still interesting to note that adults with kids are less concerned than adults without XD

T-Bone24:Only 1000 people? That's hardly representative of 310,000,000 people. It's not even a fair survey, as Exterminas has pointed out:

[quote="Exterminas" post="7.245137.8951536"]Look at the questions from the survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?-> Everybody should be concerned about the degree of violence in media! Doesn't mean it's a bad thing! I am concerned about fire, because it can get out of hand.

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?-> Hell sure. More violent games equal more violent games. Meaning violence in the society. Doesn't ask If I think the games cause anything, especially doesn't ask about violent behavior. What the hell is "violence in our society"? Video Games caused the war in Iraq? Hell no.

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?-> Nobody will dissagree on this. But it doesn't say anything about games in general.

This survey doesn't ask about any real connections. It is so incredibly vague that with questions of this style you can "proof" any belief.

"Do you believe there is a connection between cheese and the moon?"50% believe that the moon is made of cheese!

I want a survey to come out with the Statement/question "Video game retailers aren't allowed to sell M rated games to minors, Do you think the parents are being irresponsible spineless twits when they buy their children said games even though they don't want to expose their children to violence, instead of just saying no?" I'd almost bet money that it would be 100%, course the reason I say almost is because there are many, many idiots everywhere so...

At least, even as you tell the tale, the Escapist writer is attempting to make himself look smart. What, may I ask, is your post attempting to do? It certainly can't be an attempt to make yourself look smart.

Survey says: Using anecdotal evidence to prove your point is a sign of not having point. Just because a fact is a fact doesn't mean that it means whatever it is that you want it to mean just because you want it to.

It works if you try. A) Statistics are not anecdotal evidence. Ill-created surveys certainly are. B) If you're not going to make your point, then don't continue typing.

Statistics absolutely can be anecdotal. If I tell you that the Big Mac causes people to get fat you can say "No, it doesn't. Look at these statistics! Since the Big Mac was introduced there is not a larger percentage of fat people", and you would be wrong. Because the one does not equal the other. Perhaps whatever people used to eat that made them fat is no longer being eaten since the Big Mac came out. Just because there aren't more dead people doesn't mean that a product isn't deadly. It just doesn't work like that.

"Statistics absolutely can be anecdotal."

Can I ask from where you come up with this stuff? Do you simply pull it out of the thin air? Or do you have a well-thumbed copy of The Moron's Collection of Nonsensical Statements from which you liberally quote on occasion?

T-Bone24:Only 1000 people? That's hardly representative of 310,000,000 people. It's not even a fair survey, as Exterminas has pointed out:

[quote="Exterminas" post="7.245137.8951536"]Look at the questions from the survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?-> Everybody should be concerned about the degree of violence in media! Doesn't mean it's a bad thing! I am concerned about fire, because it can get out of hand.

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?-> Hell sure. More violent games equal more violent games. Meaning violence in the society. Doesn't ask If I think the games cause anything, especially doesn't ask about violent behavior. What the hell is "violence in our society"? Video Games caused the war in Iraq? Hell no.

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?-> Nobody will dissagree on this. But it doesn't say anything about games in general.

This survey doesn't ask about any real connections. It is so incredibly vague that with questions of this style you can "proof" any belief.

"Do you believe there is a connection between cheese and the moon?"50% believe that the moon is made of cheese!

Actually, sample size isn't all that determines the validity of a statistical sample. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with "bias." Sample size only relates to the concept of "validity." Small statistical samples can nevertheless be valid statistical samples. While the selection process employed and the resulting composition of the sample can produce biased results, the size of the sample itself has no bearing on bias. And Rasmussen is a well-respected pollster. As well-respected as anyone else in the game. I wouldn't rush to assume faulty methodology. They aren't exactly hacks at what they do.

And your "310,000,000 people" number, if it is, as I assume, a reference to the total population of the United States, includes millions of "people" below the age of four years-old and who therefore have barely mastered -- much less have a well-informed opinion on -- their ABCs, and therefore can't reasonably be counted among those who would have a well-informed opinion on the issues of violent video games. And that you would include the entire population of the United States among those that the sample should capture suggests to me that you know precious little about statistics.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to either fuck up a statistical measurement or to use particular methodologies so as to deliberately skew results in a desired way. Both are entirely possible. But nothing you point to as evidence of "bias" is actually good evidence of that bias.

T-Bone24:Only 1000 people? That's hardly representative of 310,000,000 people. It's not even a fair survey, as Exterminas has pointed out:

[quote="Exterminas" post="7.245137.8951536"]Look at the questions from the survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?-> Everybody should be concerned about the degree of violence in media! Doesn't mean it's a bad thing! I am concerned about fire, because it can get out of hand.

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?-> Hell sure. More violent games equal more violent games. Meaning violence in the society. Doesn't ask If I think the games cause anything, especially doesn't ask about violent behavior. What the hell is "violence in our society"? Video Games caused the war in Iraq? Hell no.

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?-> Nobody will dissagree on this. But it doesn't say anything about games in general.

This survey doesn't ask about any real connections. It is so incredibly vague that with questions of this style you can "proof" any belief.

"Do you believe there is a connection between cheese and the moon?"50% believe that the moon is made of cheese!

The Eupho Guy:I guess this just proves Mark Twain correct when he quoted Benjamin Disraeli as saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Also, the people that brought you this poll were also responsible for this one:

*snipped*

Make of that what you will.

What makes you think Rasmussen is any better or worse that Harris, Gallup, Zogby, Pew, or any other of the major players?

Honestly? I couldn't tell you either way. I'm not so invested in the business of generating statistics that I could give you a complete rundown of the pros and cons of each group.

I do, however, have some doubts about this poll and how it has been presented. It may just be the wording in the news post but don't you think that 1000 people is a little bit small to be representing the views of a nation? Even if you discount those under the age of 18, that is still a very small sample size in relation to the total population. Also, the questions could be seen as worded in such a way so that they get the answers they are looking for in the majority of cases, which is probably a deliberate move on their behalf. As you stated before, they aren't hacks, so they should know how to phrase their questions to get the answers they want.

(Note - Its two in the morning here, so don't be surprised if I don't respond for a while)

The Eupho Guy:I guess this just proves Mark Twain correct when he quoted Benjamin Disraeli as saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Also, the people that brought you this poll were also responsible for this one:

*snipped*

Make of that what you will.

What makes you think Rasmussen is any better or worse that Harris, Gallup, Zogby, Pew, or any other of the major players?

Honestly? I couldn't tell you either way. I'm not so invested in the business of generating statistics that I could give you a complete rundown of the pros and cons of each group.

I do, however, have some doubts about this poll and how it has been presented. It may just be the wording in the news post but don't you think that 1000 people is a little bit small to be representing the views of a nation? Even if you discount those under the age of 18, that is still a very small sample size in relation to the total population. Also, the questions could be seen as worded in such a way so that they get the answers they are looking for in the majority of cases, which is probably a deliberate move on their behalf. As you stated before, they aren't hacks, so they should know how to phrase their questions to get the answers they want.

(Note - Its two in the morning here, so don't be surprised if I don't respond for a while)

I can't say without spending the time and effort to closely examine the sampling method employed -- an examination that I'm not much bothered to conduct -- whether it is indeed an insufficient sample size. It depends on a host of factors including the population sought to be measured, randomness of the sampling process, probability of under-inclusion, etc., etc. But I do know enough to say that we can't merely look at the 1000 respondents and conclude on nothing more than the mere number of respondents that it is an insufficient number of respondents to be a valid sample size.

T-Bone24:Only 1000 people? That's hardly representative of 310,000,000 people. It's not even a fair survey, as Exterminas has pointed out:

[quote="Exterminas" post="7.245137.8951536"]Look at the questions from the survey:

1* How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?-> Everybody should be concerned about the degree of violence in media! Doesn't mean it's a bad thing! I am concerned about fire, because it can get out of hand.

2* Do violent video games lead to more violence in our society?-> Hell sure. More violent games equal more violent games. Meaning violence in the society. Doesn't ask If I think the games cause anything, especially doesn't ask about violent behavior. What the hell is "violence in our society"? Video Games caused the war in Iraq? Hell no.

3* Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?-> Nobody will dissagree on this. But it doesn't say anything about games in general.

This survey doesn't ask about any real connections. It is so incredibly vague that with questions of this style you can "proof" any belief.

"Do you believe there is a connection between cheese and the moon?"50% believe that the moon is made of cheese!

This survey is what we'd call in statistics as "biased"

derp! Double post!

I mean the way they asked the questions was a cause for probable bias.

I mean the way they asked the questions was a cause for probable bias.

How so? Because, as Exterminas claims, the questions are "vague?" They aren't at all vague, in my opinion. How are they "vague?" Surveys don't usually set out to measure causal connections by asking questions like "Do you think violent video games cause real world violence?" because the answer to that question -- be it "Yes," "No," or "How the fuck would I know" -- cannot and therefore does not measure the fact of causation. At best, it measures the opinion across respondents to the question asked.

And "vague" questions, assuming they are vague, are still unlikely to result in statistical bias. They are more likely to result in non-responsive responses because the respondent doesn't understand what's being asked of them. The main culprit in the creation of biased survey results owing to faulty questions is the "leading" question (i.e., a question asked in a manner so as to make a particular response more likely to be given than any other responses).

I mean the way they asked the questions was a cause for probable bias.

How so? Because, as Exterminas claims, the questions are "vague?" They aren't at all vague, in my opinion. How are they "vague?" Surveys don't usually set out to measure causal connections by asking questions like "Do you think violent video games cause real world violence?" because the answer to that question -- be it "Yes," "No," or "How the fuck would I know" -- cannot and therefore does not measure the fact of causation. At best, it measures the opinion across respondents to the question asked.

And "vague" questions, assuming they are vague, are still unlikely to result in statistical bias. They are more likely to result in non-responsive responses because the respondent doesn't understand what's being asked of them. The main culprit in the creation of biased survey results owing to faulty questions is the "leading" question (i.e., a question asked in a manner so as to make a particular response more likely to be given than any other responses).

They're not vague, it's the specific way they are asked that makes me suspect they were leaning towards people to say yes. (Can we just cut my involvement with the other user you're referencing? I don't agree with everything he said.) Wait...*goes back and rereads the questions and comments Mr.Exterminas wrote* Well I'll be damned.

I mean the way they asked the questions was a cause for probable bias.

How so? Because, as Exterminas claims, the questions are "vague?" They aren't at all vague, in my opinion. How are they "vague?" Surveys don't usually set out to measure causal connections by asking questions like "Do you think violent video games cause real world violence?" because the answer to that question -- be it "Yes," "No," or "How the fuck would I know" -- cannot and therefore does not measure the fact of causation. At best, it measures the opinion across respondents to the question asked.

And "vague" questions, assuming they are vague, are still unlikely to result in statistical bias. They are more likely to result in non-responsive responses because the respondent doesn't understand what's being asked of them. The main culprit in the creation of biased survey results owing to faulty questions is the "leading" question (i.e., a question asked in a manner so as to make a particular response more likely to be given than any other responses).

They're not vague, it's the specific way they are asked that makes me suspect they were leaning towards people to say yes. (Can we just cut my involvement with the other user you're referencing? I don't agree with everything he said.) Wait...*goes back and rereads the questions and comments Mr.Exterminas wrote* Well I'll be damned.

Ok new theory: People are just twats. No poll bias here folks.

They may well have posed questions in a leading way. But I can't tell because Rasmussen's website provides the questions asked but doesn't provide the choice of responses given (and I assume the questions weren't asked open-ended but, rather, came with responses from which to choose as surveys don't usually pose open-ended questions because open-ended answers are difficult to accurately group and quantify).

But if they did do something like ask "How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?" and then provided the following responses from among which to choose:

(a) very concerned

(b) a little concerned

(c) not at all concerned,

then the question is a leading question because, of the three possible choices, two of them indicate some level of concern while only one indicates no of level concern, thus stacking the deck with a probability of 2 outta 3 in favor of responses indicating concern. That's a leading question and one which can easily create a bias towards concern. But, again, without knowing the possible choices, I can't tell whether or not the deck was indeed stacked on way or the other.

As a further example, if you look above to the screen shot posted by The Eupho Guy of the Rasmussen poll on global warming being reported by FAUX News, those choices are leading choices because 2 of 3 indicate a likelihood of falsification while only 1 of 3 indicates no likelihood of falsification. That would naturally tend to create a bias towards falsification.

But of far greater concern should be the fact that when all responses are totaled, they equal 120% of responses. As a matter of simple mathematics, there can never be anything which is 120% of responses. Total responses can never be more than 100% of responses. That's just a mathematical fact. Is this nonsensical mathematics FAUX's fault or Rasmussen's fault? I dunno for sure but I'd vote FAUX's fault if I had to vote.